I can also see how this could be an opportunistic tactic to coverup wrong-doing. The two can also be simultaneously true.

If you don't trust my word - you can go look up a map of damage from the riots yourself.

There is a lot that MPD could’ve done, and instead they decided to destroy evidence at a precinct uninvolved in the disturbances. Given how bad of an excuse that is and their history of misbehavior, it is perfectly reasonable to not give them the benefit of the doubt here.

To me, I can see it being a reasonable response given the nature of the situation. That said, I can also see it being a coverup. There's no details that are very illuminating here, but hopefully an investigation filters out the mud for those interested.

> but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment.

I’d prefer if you spared the patronizing attitude, thanks.

Sure, spare your attitude in the future as well.

That leaves the question about why they’re lying, which is where losing the benefit of the doubt matters.

- there's no direct evidence that says the precinct was in danger, but it's also reasonable to assume a group of rioters would attack other precincts in the area and that they acted based on proximity.

- there's no evidence to suggest they're covering up for something, but it's reasonable to assume that this would be a good opportunity for someone looking to do that.

In Afghanistan I was part of three base attacks. All three were a surprise and two quickly overwhelmed our defense forces on the perimeter and they breached the base. One was in Musa Qalah, the other is one that made headlines in Camp Leatherneck. The chance to act is a very slim window and that's something you're reminded of continually. So yeah, I don't see it as totally unreasonable but I can see the other side of this argument as well.

Its reasonable assumption to assume that they might attack another precinct, not a reason to assume that a precinct will fall. If they say, barricaded the bridge between the two precincts or setup a cordon, that would seem like a prudent response. If the rioters were at the gates and they initiated this policy, that also would be reasonable.

Jumping straight to destroying evidence in the precinct is not a reasonable response. They need to provide evidence that the situation was so dire that they had to resort to their last ditch policies, and they have not done that. Pointing towards riots miles away is an insufficient excuse; they need to provide evidence of an immediate threat of the precinct falling.

> there's no evidence to suggest they're covering up for something, but it's reasonable to assume that this would be a good opportunity for someone looking to do that.

You’re sidestepping the issue. I think they’re lying about why the destroyed the evidence. Once I believe that they’ve lied once, why should I continue to give the benefit of the doubt to them?

More investigation is obviously needed, but I personally smell a rat.

We're also dealing in hindsight. I still think given the climate back then and that a group of people stormed a police station is a pretty incredible circumstance to be dealing with. Now, whether their bias to action was innocent or correct is up to investigation to determine.

It's perfectly okay to speculate and ask for investigations. It's less okay to speak in very definitive terms about something that is quite in flux. That's why I'm a bit wishy-washy on what I believe happened, because any number of variables can produce each outcome -- or both.

I am not "side-stepping" the issue. You think they lied and now you're into searching for an MO to match that. To me, that's pretty improper and it's not how I come to conclusions.

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt, that would imply a conclusion. This, to me, has not concluded. Both theories are still plausible based on the information we have today.

The entire purpose of the justice system, including the police, is to judge people in hindsight. Why can’t we judge them in hindsight?

> Buildings along a 5-mile stretch of Lake Street in Minneapolis and a 3.5-mile stretch of University Avenue in St. Paul's Midway area experienced some of the heaviest damage.

You might be able to say that various people did all the damage, but to my knowledge a smaller group of folks were responsible for the larger damage done.

Not exactly the map of a station in dire straits worried about getting overrun.

Plenty of Americans can walk a few miles. Besides, it’s not like rioting is something that doesn’t take significant cardio vascular fortitude in its own right. Something tells me that individually lots of those rioters were more than capable of walking five miles over level, paved terrain.

The real question is not whether or not a rioter could walk from there to here, but whether the riot will come here without being stopped or dissipating into smaller and easier to stop groups. If the riot disperses and 5% shows up at the other precinct, that’s a pretty easy thing for the cops to deal with; and if it isn’t I have questions about what all the public safety money is being spent for.

And that's of course before we look at the terrain. The 2nd and 3rd precinct are on opposite sides of the river. That means that even if you were certain that the riot was coming for the 2nd precinct next, you have a very small number of bridges that you could defend to stop the riot. In fact, cops regularly prefer bridges to kettle and mass arrest both riots and protests, and that would have been the perfect opportunity had it happened.